Funny, this talk of partnerships and cross-collaboration got me thinking about a composites design tool I wrote about recently. Collier Research, which makes a composites structural sizing and analysis tool and it actually was born out of NASA, and the now commercial tool, HyperSizer, helps engineers determine the best structural layup for composite materials used in everything from space crafts to wind turbines.

Dave, that's a really intriguing question. I've been wondering the same thing. I think there's a growing trend, but the trend may be a little broader. We've got these suppliers here coming together and self-funding. We've got aerospace component companies buying composite makers, as I report here, although I've seen similar announcements since:

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=236257

plus manufacturer consortia for recycling carbon fiber to make materials for automotive or aerospace use:

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=237228

as well as various partnerships between composite makers and university research labs for failure-predicting coatings:

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=238056

In general, I'd say composite makers are doing more partnerships and collaborations, with each other and with university R&D facilities, to further both innovation and commercialization.

Actually, composite use in aircraft structures began in the military first, before its use in commercial aircraft, as I reported here:

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=235863

As Pederson said, the main difference is that the scale of use in military (and early commercial) applications was way below what's being considered for commercial aircraft today. That change in volumes manufactured also changes much about the processes, their monitoring requirements, and the nature of the risks for failure. The last is also affected by the fact that we're talking primary structures, and these are commercial planes.

I think the points Beth and naperlou make about wind turbine blades are good ones: yes there are differences between the uses in size and rotation speed. But the similarities should allow us to increase the database, as Alex says.

It's interesting that the material suppliers are sharing a significant part of the cost of these prototypes. Of course, the advantage to them is obvious; not only do they benefit if the Army decides to buy the helicopter, but they also benefit from having a high-profile showcase application of their material, which may help them to get into other applications. Is this kind of arrangement common?

Wind turbine use of composites in their blades may well provide some information for defense use of composites. In the computer area, it was use of commercial components that allowed an incredible expansion of the use of comuters on the battlefield. Of course there are adaptations that have to be made. One difference between wind turbine blades and helicoters is the speed with whcih the blades spin. Another is the size. On the other hand, there are lots of wind turbine blades out there in lots of operaitonal environments. There should be some good information that can be shared.

One of the great collateral benefits of this is that we'll get a broader database of how composites perform over time -- i.e., more hours in the air. This will play into the experiential information we need on delamination risk, which is something that everyone's wondering about as composites move into primary structures on commercial aircraft (e.g., the wings on the Boeing Dreamliner).

I would imagine composites will play a really important role in defense aircraft and these prototype models are just a starting point. I would also think there are some real synergies between these military helicopter blades and the work being done to deploy carbon-fiber-reinforced composites for wind turbine blades. Perhaps some cross-industry IP sharing is in the cards, particularly between those wind turbine projects with government backing.

A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.

It won't be too much longer and hardware design, as we used to know it, will be remembered alongside the slide rule and the Karnaugh map. You will need to move beyond those familiar bits and bytes into the new world of software centric design.

People who want to take advantage of solar energy in their homes no longer need to install a bolt-on solar-panel system atop their houses -- they can integrate solar-energy-harvesting shingles directing into an existing or new roof instead.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.